Syed GHULAM HASSAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969, following the alleged recovery of foreign liquor, mobile cards, and cloth from his luggage at the Lahore International Airport. The core legal question was whether the belated and unauthorized drawing of samples from the seized case property after the submission of the challan created reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The Lahore High Court held that since the case property was in the custody of the trial Court and samples were drawn without the Court's permission long after the challan was submitted, this irregularity cast doubt on the prosecution's case, entitling the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized tampering or extraction of samples from case property already submitted to the trial Court creates a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry.
- Does the drawing of samples from case property without the court's permission after submission of the challan entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether recovery of foreign liquor without timely chemical examination constitutes a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Can case property in the custody of the trial Court be interfered with by the prosecution without prior judicial permission?
- Section 156(1), (8), (14), Customs Act 1969
- Section 157, Customs Act 1969
- Section 178, Customs Act 1969
- Section 32(1), Customs Act 1969
- Section 16-2(5), Customs Act 1969
- Section 171, Customs Act 1969
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Syed Ghulam Hassan son of Syed Munawar Ali Shah, the petitioner seeks post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,27 of 2006 dated 21-8-2006, registered with Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Cell, Collectorate of Customs, Customs House, Lahore, for offences under sections 156(1), (8), (14), 157, 178, 32(1), 16-2(5) of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Allah Ditta Inspector, Customs Traffic Airport, Lahore was that on 21-8-2006 at 19-30, within the area of Internatinal Arrival Lounge of Lahore International Airport, at the time of checking of passengers of Flight No,ED-411 arrived from Dubai, 108 bottles of liquor of foreign origin, mobile cards and 940 yards of foreign origin cloth, valued at Rs,1,10,000, Rs,20,000 and Rs,70,000 respectively were recovered on search of the luggage of the petitioner and another passenger by the name of Muhammad Sagheer. On interrogation the petitioner and his co-accused were given notice under section 171 of the Customs Act and were apprehended. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner's plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Special Judge, Customs Lahore, who dismissed his application vide order, dated 11-9-2006. Hence this application.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Pervaiz Khan Shahid, Inspector Customs, Police Station I&P Cell, Collectorate of Customs House, Lahore.
5. Admittedly the liquor had been seized on 21-8-2006 and the prosecution does not deny that neither any sample had been taken nor the liquor had been sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report. Challan (report under section 173, Cr.P.C.) was sent to the learned trial Court on 28-9-2006 whereupon the learned trial Court took cognizance. It was A thereafter on 26-12-2006 that two samples from two different bottles out of 108 bottles were taken out and the same were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis. The learned counsel appearing for the department has not been able to explain as to how the samples had been obtained when the challan had been submitted before the trial Court. Obviously the case property belonged to the Court and could be interfered with only with the permission of the Court. There is nothing on record to show that any permission was either sought or granted by the Court for obtaining samples out of the case property. This belated exercise on the part of the department casts some shadow of doubt on the prosecution story, the benefit whereof, has to be extended to the petitioner even at bail stage.
6. In this view of the matter, it is yet to be determined during the trial whether the commodity recovered from the petitioner falls within the definition of smuggled items and that whether the provisions of section 156(1)(8) of Customs Act, are attracted, thus, case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail.
7. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.